Abiogences question

[vargo]

I was in light conversation about evolution with a creationist about how people don't take the time to understand it. I told him everyday I'm learning something new about evolution. Then all of sudden he springs this on to me, knowing that I would not be able to refute him, because I lack the complete knowledge of early abiogenesis. By him doing this he thinks he has won the debate. In a reality he has because I have not yet even touched the understanding of Abiogences.
So in any-case I was wounding what said was bull shit or does it have some truth?. I would really like to come back with something strong, and try to end this short debate about abiogenesis quickly for my sake.

I do understand that Abiogences and the Theory of Evolution are two separate theories. It seems he's putting both theories together.

Thanks

This is his post

Why don't you mathematically model the present theory of the RNA world. Then model and calculate the probability of development of a cell or bacteria.

You know it can't be done. Evolution is one of the few theories scientist swallow without a predicative model. Not only do many swallow the theory hook line and sinker they attempt to stuff it down others throats and make other theories illegal to teach.

[Batman]

Apart from the fact that this, at least to me, makes no sense whatsoever, evolution has been seen in action time and again.

[Jalinth]

All evolution means (at the core) is change over time. How that first replicating molecule came to exist is irrelevant. It could be alien piss from a passing starship crew, God's will, or purely chemical reactions. Who cares from an evolutionary theory perspective.

He is throwing up a straw man against you. He is equating abiogenesis to evolution, when they are quite distinct. His first paragraph and second paragraph are unrelated. I'd phrase it like why don't you mathematically model the creation of oil. You know it can't. Therefore, scientists are blindly accepting the theory of the internal combustion engines (yes, I realize this engine is a result of applied science, but same concept) because you can't come up with a predictive model.

If this type of thinking held true, we'd still be riding horses over long distances and cars, trucks, and trains wouldn't exist.

[Darth Servo]

The fact that the guy jumps from a primitive RNA strand to complete "bacteria or cell" shows what an imbecile he is. Apparently he doesn't even realize that bacteria ARE cells.

[Zero]

Just tell him that the jump wasn't straight from RNA to bacteria. One image of early earth, IIRC, is that the seas were full of proteins and amino acids and such, and they think this because of experiments that have been done combining methange gas, water, and heat over shorter periods of time. Basically, out of these materials, an RNA molecule formed. RNA molecules are self-replicating, and with any self-replicating thingy, there's a small chance of error, so a replication could yield a molecule with a greater or lesser chance of replicating itself, and there you have it... evolution.

Of course, that's kinda just from memory, and may be at least part bullshit, but if hes stupid enough to make claims about a direct jump from RNA to bacteria, he already doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

[King Kong]

Always remember that the burden of proof is on him. He must show how creationism fits the available evidence and explains things that modern biology has not (yet, of course). He should be the one desperately trying to come up with arguments, not you. Randomly forcing you to prove things is not debate.

The most important thing to get across is that evolution is not random. Once a self-replicating molecule has formed, beneficial mutations are captured and harmful ones are eliminated, making this 'probability of spontaneously forming a bacterium' argument of his irrelevant. If he gives you trouble with the irreducible complexity of the cell bullshit, simply point out that cellular structures can change function over time. For example, RNA could have fulfilled many of the functions of the early cell now taken over by more efficient molecules (enzymes, DNA, etc.).

The argument sounds similar to the standard creationist straw-man attack on evolution: stating that life could not have spontaneously formed due to simple chance. No doubt he considers himself sophisticated because he knows how complex a cell is. You're not going to single-handedly convince him that life naturally evolved, he needs to do that himself. So the best plan would be to plant seeds of doubt in his mind and hope that he is curious enough to learn on his own.

[Surlethe]

The guy you're arguing with is a dishonest shit: you tell him you're not an expert, and what does he do? Challenges you to behave like an expert! Tell him that you're not going to do his homework, and if he wants to attack abiogenesis, he should do the work himself to study it.

Oh, yeah; it's also a red herring, since evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis; the mechanism works even if God created all life six thousand years ago.

[Darth Wong]

Why don't you mathematically model the present theory of the RNA world. Then model and calculate the probability of development of a cell or bacteria.

Does the fundie have a better theory? There is nothing wrong with saying "we don't know" about things we don't know. It is, in fact, far more logical than simply making up a meaningless explanation, such as "I believe an invisible man in the sky did it". If such an explanation is superior, then perhaps he should produce mathematical models and physical mechanisms for that explanation.

You know it can't be done. Evolution is one of the few theories scientist swallow without a predicative model. Not only do many swallow the theory hook line and sinker they attempt to stuff it down others throats and make other theories illegal to teach.

Ah, another creationist idiot who does not differentiate between evolution and abiogenesis.

[Patrick Degan]

Tell Mr. Creationist Fuckwit to mathematically model God and predict His actions, then cram it down his throat that there isn't even the remotest formula to attempt such a thing but that Fundies swallow the God "theory" hook, line and sinker and attempt to stuff it down others' throats and make science illegal or meaningless to teach.

[Ariphaos]

Why don't you mathematically model the present theory of the RNA world. Then model and calculate the probability of development of a cell or bacteria.

Dropping an oxygen atom is not a particularly statistically unlikely event. Ask him wtf he means by a mathematical model. Then ask, out of quadrillions of RNA specimens, what must the likelyhood be of a single oxygen molecule dropping out of the chain. Then ask what the likelihood of some Uracil getting Methylized is. Remind him that many critters are going to have a majority of G-C codes, because they are more stable, making this change less drastic.

You know it can't be done. Evolution is one of the few theories scientist swallow without a predicative model. Not only do many swallow the theory hook line and sinker they attempt to stuff it down others throats and make other theories illegal to teach.

He makes three factual errors in this statement.

1: Only if he implies an absurd definition of mathematical model. Otherwise it is quite obviously feasible. RNA -> DNA involves two small changes.
2: Evolution is a predictive theory. Ask any breeder.
3: No other theories have been proposed to teach in schools, because none exist. Only one other hypothesis has been proposed - the Gaia hypothesis, and it is more of a tangent to evolution than a counter.

Intelligent Design is not a theory. It is not even a hypothesis, because none of its proponents have devised a means by which it could be tested. Irreducable complexity would work, however not a single such item proposed has held up to scrutiny, to my knowledge.

[Darth Wong]

Irreducable complexity would work, however not a single such item proposed has held up to scrutiny, to my knowledge.

Irreducible complexity is not a theory either. A theory must explain something; irreducible complexity only claims that we can't explain something.

[vargo]

So I posted my respones, hoping to it would just end there. Today I logged on and He responed back. I was just going to let go and not worry about it anymore, Then He threw GOD at me and faith in Evolution.

I had to post this for you guys. I really should drop this debate I have no ground to stand on. I still wet behind the ears when it comes to Evolution.

This what I posted

The fact you jumped from a primitive RNA strand to complete "bacteria or cell" shows what you dont know about cells. Apparently you don't even realize that bacteria ARE cells.

Anycase evolution is not random. Once a self-replicating molecule has formed, beneficial mutations are captured and harmful ones are eliminated, making this 'probability of spontaneously forming a bacterium' argument of yours irrelevant. And don't start with irreducible complexity of the cell Stuff, because cellular structures can change function over time. For example, RNA could have fulfilled many of the functions of the early cell now taken over by more efficient molecules (enzymes, DNA, etc.).

And this is what i got this morning from TURD MAN

I know plenty, but don't have the time to get into specifics. Why not address the main point of my argument rather than trying to avoid the issue altogether.

IF you DID understand cellular biology, biochemistry you would see it takes more faith to beleive in evolouton that it does to believe in God.

The weird thing is. This debate was just about why people don't take the time to understand evolution, the second I told him I'm still learning it. He decides to take to another level hoping that maybe I would change my way I think about evolution.

[Patrick Degan]

I know plenty, but don't have the time to get into specifics. Why not address the main point of my argument rather than trying to avoid the issue altogether.

IF you DID understand cellular biology, biochemistry you would see it takes more faith to beleive in evolouton that it does to believe in God.

He's lying. It's plain from this bit of handwaving bullshit that he knows nothing whatsover and is just going to keep screaming the Complexity = Goddidit non-argument ad-infinitum.

[Darth Wong]

IF you DID understand cellular biology, biochemistry you would see it takes more faith to beleive in evolouton that it does to believe in God.

And if you understood cellular biology and biochemistry you would be able to explain precisely and in great detail why they lead to this conclusion of yours, rather than just expecting us to take you at your word.

[Ariphaos]

Irreducible complexity is not a theory either. A theory must explain something; irreducible complexity only claims that we can't explain something.

What I meant was that an example of something provably irreducibly complex could be used as evidence. If a sufficiently complex system is found, some form of occam's razor must be used.

A good potential example would be finding a conventional nanite performing some task (oxygen exchanging, IIRC, is something with a supposedly far superior solution),

Of course then I'd think 'alien civilization' before 'god', but still.

I know plenty, but don't have the time to get into specifics. Why not address the main point of my argument rather than trying to avoid the issue altogether.

IF you DID understand cellular biology, biochemistry you would see it takes more faith to beleive in evolouton that it does to believe in God.

He's a liar, plain and simple. Ask him to take his case to EvC forum and prove himself there if he's so omniscient. Otherwise, he's just spouting bullshit.

Address this however is thematically appropriate on the forum, seriously. "I know the answer but I don't have time to explain." is elitist bullshit. Worse, since he is most certainly lying, it's pseudo-elitist bullshit. I can smell it from here and need to take a shower.

[Darth Servo]

I know plenty, but don't have the time to get into specifics.

Yet you have plenty of time to spout creationist strawmen versions of evolution.

Why not address the main point of my argument rather than trying to avoid the issue altogether.

Pointing out that your argument is a strawman DOES address the main point, moron.

IF you DID understand cellular biology, biochemistry you would see it takes more faith to beleive in evolouton that it does to believe in God.

Yet he doesn't explain WHY or HOW.

[Wyrm]

I know plenty, but don't have the time to get into specifics.

Obvious lie. If he did know "plenty", he wouldn't have confused abiogenesis with evolution. That's evolution 101 right there.

Why not address the main point of my argument rather than trying to avoid the issue altogether.

This guy is beating on a person not versed in evolution to defend evolution. That's dishonest asshattery. It's like challenging a beginning computer user to defend the theory of TCP/IP stacks. When the helpless newbie can't defend, the guy claims victory against the eeeevil TCP/IP Stack Theory.

This fundie dipwad is a dishonest little fuck, hoping to claim another point for Jeebus by beating down someone just beginning to scratch the surface of the subject themselves.

IF you DID understand cellular biology, biochemistry you would see it takes more faith to beleive in evolouton that it does to believe in God.

Another lie. An omnipotent god only shifts the question to where that god came from, because God is obviously even MORE COMPLEX than the things he's proposing God made! Remember, the entire point of irreducible complexity arguments is that complex shit like us can't come into existence without assistance. Therefore, logically, if God is more complex shit than us, then He needed some assistance from a God of Gods to come into existence Himself, who (being even more complex shit than God) would require a God of God of Gods, requiring a God of God of God of Gods, and so on. If complex shit like Gods can come into existence without intelligent assistance, then surely less complex shit like us can come into existence without intelligent assistence, and more readily!

[Darth Servo]

This fundie dipwad is a dishonest little fuck, hoping to claim another point for Jeebus by beating down someone just beginning to scratch the surface of the subject themselves.

Of course because someone who actually does understand evolution won't even flinch at the fundie BS. Gotta catch people while they're still easy to persuade.

[Darth Wong]

My favourite was the lying sack of shit creationist I once ran into on the totalwar forums who pretended he was an expert in thermodynamics, and then tried to explain the second law of thermodynamics to me. It was simply unbelievable how horribly he butchered the concept, ranting on about how the open/closed system distinction is just an evolutionist smokescreen and how you need a "plan" in order to reduce entropy in any system, hence an intelligent designer. And of course, when I called him a liar, the mods immediately suspended me.

[drachefly]

That reminds me of my AOL days. There was a troll there, KathrynK/Qatmom, who attacked every point of view, viciously strawmanning it... including her own. Yes, she trolled herself.

I pointed this out.

I was booted.

[Kathryn]

That reminds me of my AOL days. There was a troll there, KathrynK/Qatmom, who attacked every point of view, viciously strawmanning it... including her own. Yes, she trolled herself.

I pointed this out.

I was booted.

I guess it's hard for people to forget the past isn't it?

[Admiral Johnason]

I remember gettting inot an arguement with a creationist over genetic diversity. I pointed out that Noah's Ark and the Garden of Eden could not possibly house diverse enough populations of animals to produce a self-sustaining stock of wldlife (I mean if it was big enough for two people to take care of, it simply could not hold enough specimens to prevent imbreeding in evey species.) they said that I was fighting minor details and not dealing with the point. Naturally, I pointed out that I had disproved that the Garden couldn't have existed and humanity and all other animal life could not have kept going after the flood in Noah. They then accused me of failing God as a Christian and stormed off yelling that if you couldn't see past the details, you had no faith.

Ironicly, they defied so many parts of the NT later, it wasn't even funny. I went on to point out that they had failed to keep up with the message and showed them that they couldn't see past on verse to see another.

[Ar-Adunakhor]

That reminds me of my AOL days. There was a troll there, KathrynK/Qatmom, who attacked every point of view, viciously strawmanning it... including her own. Yes, she trolled herself.

I pointed this out.

I was booted.

I guess it's hard for people to forget the past isn't it?

It would probably be easier to forget the past if you did not manifest the exact same qualities in the present. This is especially true when responding to someone who is highlighting those qualities.

Regarding the fundie, why in the fucking hell do they pull the "I know a lot about it, but I really don't have time to post it... even though I am making this post right now about how you are wrong!" shit? Do they completely miss the obvious hypocrisy in that statement? Surely they sense it on some basic level?

Maybe not, as it seems that type usually pretends to be an expert on something they know nothing about, too. For instance: How he implied he had both a broad and deep understanding of cellular biology and biochemistry in the last line. If you were to call him on that he would just give some bullshit evasion like "i never said i knew it lozer lol." Then the mods would come and warn you about being mean to other posters, and after an asskiss post or two he could/would/will go back to strawmanning your arguments, telling lies, and insulting your intelligence.

All that, of course, brings up the question of why they must lie in the first place. If Creationisim was so true, wouldn't it be able to stand up due to it's own obvious merits, rather than merely be propped up by lies like some rotting outhouse? And why do they get so prickly when you point that out? Hell, just pointing out the fact that Creationists rely exclusively on attacking other theories rather than evidence of their own is enough to get you banned some places.

So yeah, in summation: The fundie is a hypocrite, a liar, and will probably accuse you of "viciously attacking" him if you point out that he has no defense except a rabid attack on principles he does not understand.

[vargo]

So in closing I was trying to end the topic by saying this....

So what alternative do you suggest with evidence to support such an alternative? From what I have seen you choosing only to assault the theory of abiogenesis rather than to offer a viable alternative with any more evidence than the theory of abiogenesis possesses.

The term " Pick on someone your own size"

He will not let it drop, I told him I'm not debating anymore, for sheer lack of understanding of abiogenesis. I think he is just out to prove everyone his enormous power of debate.

This will be the last time I post anything he says. Because other people have join the debate in arguing against him. So I'm just going to slip away and let other more informed people take over this debate.

His last post.

We could think of the Stanley Miller experiment in making amino acids. Did he make amino acids? The answer is yes. But if he did not trap his products, they would have been destroyed by further exposure to the energy source that made them. The truth of the matter is that you nor anyone else knows how successful your conjecture would be (in the real world) and there is an abundant amount of evidence that would suggest this would not work.


One of the articles someone else suggested said, "However, so far there has been no explanation of how the first RNA-like biopolymers could originate and survive on the primordial Earth." Wonder why that is? And in spite of that, evolutionist suggest we explain how life started without explaining how the key ingredient (from their stand point) got started. In fact, evolutionist are in a habit of explaining things utilizing other yet unexplained things. And these other "yet unexplained things" are assumed without evidence to be a product of evolution. Not only this, but they do not even attempt to address the evidence which would suggest that things like RNA could not have been made upon any kind of early earth, oxygen or not. As one writer said, "In nature, far from the sterilized laboratory, uncontaminated RNA strands of any size would be unlikely to form in the first place." Even Francis Crick said in 1993, "It may turn out that we will eventually be able to see how this RNA world got started. At present, the gap from the primal 'soup' to the first RNA system capable of natural selection looks forbiddingly wide." Yes sir, very wide indeed! Too wide to wave a hand at this difficulty and start explaining other things when it itself has not been explained.
Furthermore, one researcher said the following: "It has been postulated that there was a time in protobiological evolution when RNA played a dual role as both genetic material and a catalytic molecule ("the RNA world"). However, this appealing concept encounters significant difficulties. RNA is chemically fragile and difficult to synthesize abiotically. The known range of its catalytic activities is rather narrow, and the origin of an RNA synthetic apparatus is unclear" (D. DeVincenzi, ed. "Final Report," Astrobiology Workshop at NASA Ames Research Center. December 1996). In face of all this, you want us to believe some "absorbing UV" parts will get around this. It seems it does not take much to satisfy an evolution. Anything will do other than an intelligent agent.

Why don't you start by telling us how many of the mythical RNA products would be useful? Please be specific and tell us how you know you are right.

[vargo]

Oh yeah the other article he was reffering to was made by someone else


it was this.....

When simple organic molecules are held together in a fairly concentrated area, such as stuck to a dust or ice grain, the UV light actually enhances the formation of more complex molecules by breaking some bonds and allowing the molecules to recombine DNA and RNA are relatively resistant to UV light, because some parts of the molecules shelter others and damage to the bases can provide the materials to repair the backbone. UV light gives nucleic acids a selective advantage and may in fact have been an essential ingredient for abiogenesis.